MMS mission delivers promising initial results

NASA's MMS delivers promising initial results
The four identical spacecraft of NASA’s Magnetospheric Multiscale, or MMS, mission (one of which is illustrated here) fly through the boundaries of Earth’s magnetic field to study an explosive process of magnetic reconnection. Thought to be the driver behind everything from solar flares to aurora, magnetic reconnection creates a sudden reconfiguration of magnetic fields, releasing huge amounts of energy in the process. Credit: NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center

Just under four months into the science phase of the mission, NASA's Magnetospheric Multiscale, or MMS, is delivering promising early results on a process called magnetic reconnection—a kind of magnetic explosion that's related to everything from the northern lights to solar flares.

The unprecedented set of MMS measurements will open up our understanding of the space environment surrounding Earth, allowing us to better understand what drives magnetic reconnection events. These giant magnetic bursts can send particles hurtling at near the speed of light and create oscillations in Earth's magnetic fields, affecting technology in space and interfering with radio communications. Scientists from the Southwest Research Institute, NASA, the University of Colorado Boulder and the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory presented an overview of MMS science and early results on Dec. 17, 2015, at the American Geophysical Union's Fall Meeting in San Francisco.

Planned for more than 10 years, the MMS mission started with the launch of four identical spacecraft on a single rocket in March 2015. Nine months later, the spacecraft are flying through the boundaries of Earth's magnetic system, the magnetosphere. Their initial orbit is taking them through the dayside boundaries of the magnetosphere—known as the magnetopause—where the solar wind and other solar events drive magnetic reconnection. Eventually, their orbit will loop out farther to carry them through the farthest reaches of the magnetosphere on the night side, where magnetic reconnection is thought to be driven by the build-up of stored energy.

"We've recorded over 2,000 magnetopause crossings since our science phase began," said Jim Burch, principal investigator for the MMS mission at Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas. "In that time, we've flown through hundreds of promising events."

MMS' four instrument suites and incredible measurement rates—a hundred times faster than ever before on certain instruments—is giving scientists their best look ever at magnetic reconnection. In fact, the mission's high resolution produces so much data it requires a scientist on duty during every MMS contact to prioritize which data is sent down from the spacecraft.

One of the key features of MMS is its scaling ability. The four spacecraft fly in a four-sided, pyramid-shaped formation called a tetrahedron, allowing them to build up three-dimensional views of the regions and events they fly through. Because the four spacecraft are controlled independently, the scale of their formation—and their observations—can be zoomed in or out by a factor of ten.

Though many people think of space as a completely empty vacuum, it's actually filled with electrically charged particles and electric and magnetic fields, which form a state of matter called plasma. All of this magnetic and electric energy means that magnetic reconnection plays a huge role in shaping the environment wherever plasma exists—whether that's on the sun, in interplanetary space, or at the boundaries of Earth's magnetic system.

"We can see the effects of reconnection on the sun in the form of coronal mass ejections and solar flares," said Michael Hesse, lead co-investigator for theory and modeling on the MMS mission at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. "But with MMS, we're finally able to observe the process of magnetic reconnection directly."

Magnetic reconnection is a process in which magnetic fields reconfigure suddenly, releasing huge amounts of energy. When lines snap and join back together in new formations, some of the energy that was stored in the magnetic field is converted to particle energy in the forms of heat and kinetic energy.

"Reconnection is a fundamental energy release process," said Hesse. "It impacts both the temperature and speed of particles in a plasma, two of the defining characteristics."

Katherine Goodrich, a graduate student at the University of Colorado Boulder, is working with measurements from a suite of six instruments to characterize the behavior of electric and magnetic fields at magnetic reconnection sites. This suite of instruments, the FIELDS suite—duplicated on each of the four MMS spacecraft—contains six sensors that work together to form a three-dimensional picture of the electric and magnetic fields near the spacecraft. This suite has a very high accuracy, in part due to the very long booms on each sensor.

NASA's MMS delivers promising initial results
The explosive realignment of magnetic fields -- known as magnetic reconnection -- is a thought to be a common process at the boundaries of Earth's magnetic bubble. Magnetic reconnection can connect Earth's magnetic field to the interplanetary magnetic field carried by the solar wind or coronal mass ejections. NASA's Magnetospheric Multiscale, or MMS, mission studies magnetic reconnection by flying through the boundaries of Earth's magnetic field. Credit: NASA Goddard/SWRC/CCMC/SWMF

"The long booms allow us to measure the fields with minimal contamination from the electronics aboard the spacecraft," said Goodrich. Along the spin plane, the booms measure 400 feet from end to end—longer than a regulation soccer field. The booms on the axis of spin measure 100 feet from end to end.

Using FIELDS observations, Goodrich is looking for one of the smoking guns of magnetic reconnection, called a parallel electric field.

"What we're looking for is an alignment of electric and magnetic fields," said Goodrich. "This condition is impossible with a simplified understanding of plasma, but magnetic reconnection is anything but simple."

In the simplest view of plasma—known as ideal plasma—the charged particles spinning along magnetic field lines carry enough current to instantaneously short out any electric field parallel to the magnetic field. But in actuality, plasma doesn't ever behave quite that simply, so scientists must consider a more detailed, complex version of the physics to understand how and why reconnection is able to occur. Such rigorous models—known as non-ideal plasmas—open up the possibility for the creation of gaps in these zooming charged particles, allowing parallel electric fields to form for an observable length of time.

"These events would have to combine energy dissipation, particle acceleration, and sudden changes in magnetic topology," said Goodrich. "Magnetic reconnection fits the bill perfectly."

Goodrich presented observations from MMS that showed how the FIELDS suite can spot examples of parallel electric fields at time scales down to half a second. Such observations show that MMS is flying directly through areas of interest that will help us better characterize the space environment around Earth.

Ian Cohen, a postdoctoral fellow at Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, or APL, uses a different instrument suite to identify and study the telltale particle behaviors that come with magnetic reconnection. Cohen works with two particle detectors aboard MMS: the Fly's Eye Energetic Particle Sensor, or FEEPS, and the Energetic Ion Spectrometer. The measurements are providing evidence for a mechanism by which particles can escape the Earth system and join the interplanetary medium.

When magnetic reconnection happens on the day-side, magnetic field lines from the sun connect directly to Earth's magnetic field.

"The linking of these magnetic fields means that particles can drift from within the magnetosphere to the boundary between Earth's magnetic field and the solar wind," said Cohen. "Once they get to that boundary, further reconnection events allow them to escape and float along the interplanetary magnetic field."

This magnetic sun-Earth connection also means that particles disrupted by magnetic reconnection spiral along these newly linked toward Earth, allowing the evidence of magnetic reconnection to be seen even from tens of thousands of miles away.

Cohen presented MMS observations that are clearly able to distinguish between the directions the particles are moving, which will help scientists better understand what mechanisms drive magnetic reconnection.

"All in all, the data we have gotten so far has just been astounding," said Burch. "Now we're sifting through those observations and we're going to be able to understand the drivers behind in a way never before possible."


Explore further

NASA's MMS spacecraft achieve tightest flying formation ever

Citation: MMS mission delivers promising initial results (2015, December 18) retrieved 22 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-12-mms-mission-results.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
32 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Dec 19, 2015
"Magnetic reconnection is pseudoscience." Hannes Alfven

Sure doesn't stop the edifice that is astrophysics.

Goodrich is looking for one of the smoking guns of magnetic reconnection, called a parallel electric field." What we're looking for is an alignment of electric and magnetic fields,

Field aligned currents? Interesting, Alfven described this condition about 50 years ago.
"This condition is impossible with a simplified understanding of plasma..

Don't tell your astrophysicist buddies, it may offend them that their simplified MHD models are bunk.
In the simplest view of plasma—known as ideal plasma—the charged particles spinning along magnetic field lines carry enough current to instantaneously short out any electric field parallel to the magnetic field.

This does not stop astrophysicists from treating nearly all astrophysical plasmas in this manner.

Dec 19, 2015
plasma doesn't ever behave quite that simply, so scientists must consider a more detailed, complex version of the physics

Yes, as Alfven had plead for decades! And as proponents of EU/PC still are pleading.
Such rigorous models—known as non-ideal plasmas—open up the possibility for the creation of gaps in these zooming charged particles, allowing parallel electric fields to form for an observable length of time.

Double Layers!
"These events would have to combine energy dissipation, particle acceleration, and sudden changes in magnetic topology," said Goodrich.

Exploding double layers fit the bill perfectly, just as Alfven proposed way back in 1958!

"Magnetic reconnection fits the bill perfectly."

Except that reconnection is pseudoscience.


Dec 19, 2015
The exploding DL described by Alfven many decades ago is the real scientific explanation of these events. The reason the pseudo MR is so confusing to astrophysicists is they don't explicitly account for the electric currents in the plasma. Without considering the electric currents (Birkeland currents) and the phenomena associated with them (DL, particle distribution, acceleration, etc..) the attempts to describe these events flounder in pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo relying on "field lines" to do physical work when they are merely an visual tool to describe the vector of the field.

MR is astrophysicists trying to re-invent the wheel Alfven has already described, but they are doing it extremely poorly. They don't account for the correct physics, and as such must rely on pseudoscientific nonsense to fill in the gaps. MHD is the source of confusion for these descriptions as they don't account for the complexity of the plasmas, as the above scientist has admitted.

Dec 19, 2015
Except that reconnection is pseudoscience ... confusing to astrophysicists is they don't explicitly account for the electric currents in the plasma
cd-the religious TROLL
two lies debunked with ONE link: http://www.pppl.g...nnection

repeating a lie to try and make yourself believe, or do you really think someone is eventually going to just give up and agree?

lies don't become more true when repeated, just like your eu is never going to be a science as long as it refuses to accept the scientific method

you are a religious acolyte proselytizing and attempting to recruit the insane or stupid

Dec 19, 2015
Let me guess, which I have to because he's been ignored for months, Cap'n Stupid has added link to random website and claimed this to be "proof" that astros know plasma physics. Obvious Cap'n Stupid did not read the article and recognize the interviewed scientist corroborates what Alfven said some 40+ years ago. Obviously he is far too stupid to see the facts.

Dec 19, 2015
magnetic reconnection

ScholarAbout 73,600 results (0.04 sec)

https://scholar.g...as_sdtp=

Cantdrive will respond with You Tube videos from Thundernuts.

Dec 19, 2015
From this peer-reviewed paper; http://www.iaea.o...0222.pdf
"The most important criticism of the "merging" mechanism of energy transfer is due to Heikkila (1973) who with increasing strength has demonstrated that it is wrong. In spite of all this, we have witnessed at the same time an enormously voluminous formalism building up based on this obviously erroneous concept. Indeed, we have been burdened with a gigantic pseudo-science which penetrates large parts of cosmic plasma physics...We may conclude that anyone who uses the merging concepts states by implication that no double layers exist..The error is of basic character. Of course there can be no magnetic merging energy transfer."

Cont.

Dec 19, 2015
He goes on;
"I was naive enough to believe that such a pseudo-science would die by itself in the scientific community, and I concentrated my work on more pleasant problems. To my great surprise the opposite has occurred: the "merging" pseudo-science seems to be increasingly powerful. Magnetospheric physics and solar wind physics today are no doubt in a chaotic state, and a major reason for this is that part of the published papers are science and part pseudo science, perhaps even with a majority for the latter group.
It is difficult to find theoretical papers on the low density regions which are correct. The present state of plasma astrophysics seems to be almost completely isolated from the new concepts of plasma which the in situ measurements on space plasma have made necessary. I sincerely hope that the increased interest in the study of double layers - which is fatal to this pseudo-science - will change the situation."


Dec 19, 2015
From this peer-reviewed paper; http://www.iaea.o...0222.pdf

Peer reviewed paper my ass, it was a lecture.

Dec 19, 2015
'Critique of fluid theory of magnetospheric phenomena'
W. J. Heikkila

http://link.sprin...00645155

Dec 19, 2015
From this peer-reviewed paper; http://www.iaea.o...0222.pdf


Peer reviewed paper my ass, it was a lecture.

To the contrary, it was peer-reviewed and published;
H. Alfvén, "Double layers and circuits in astrophysics," IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci., vol. PS-14, no. 6, p. 788, Dec. 1986.

Peer-reviewed by experts in plasma physics mind you. Although he did do a presentation at NASA regarding this material.

Dec 19, 2015
"Now consider Thornhill's quote of Alfvén:
In 1984 Alfvén predicted from his circuit model of the Sun there are two
double layers, one connected to each pole at some unknown distance from the
Sun or heliosphere. He wrote, "As neither double layer nor circuit can be
derived from magnetofluid models of a plasma, such models are useless for
treating energy transfer by means of double layers. They must be replaced by
particle models and circuit theory... Application to the heliospheric current
systems leads to the prediction of two double layers on the sun's axis which
may give radiations detectable from Earth. Double layers in space should be
classified as a new type of celestial object." — H. Alfvén, Double Layers and
Circuits in Astrophysics, IEEE Transactions On Plasma Science, Vol. PS-14, No.
6, December 1986."
TBC

Dec 19, 2015
Cont.

But Alfvén's 'circuit model of the Sun' is NOT the same as EU's Electric Sun model, for Alfvén was not suggesting that his circuit mechanism was the source of solar luminosity. Alfvén described it as a possible mechanism for heliospheric plasma flows. Alfvén fully understood that stars were powered by nuclear energy and that stellar astrophysics had a major role in the study of laboratory plasmas. Consider this quote by Alfvén from his paper "Cosmical Electrodynamics" H. Alfven. Cosmical Electrodynamics. American Journal of Physics, 28:613–618, October 1960. doi: 10.1119/1.1935919.

TBC


Dec 19, 2015
Cont.

"Even if Birkeland's experiments were as good as could be made in his time, he could not produce a high-temperature dense plasma, and it is only by studying this state of matter that we really can draw certain conclusions about cosmical phenomena. This technique has not been available until the last few years and is a result of the so-called thermonuclear research. This research got its start from astrophysics - as is illustrated not only by the term "Stellarator", but also by the name of Spitzer - and it still gets much inspiration from cosmical electrodynamics.'"
"Clearly Alfvén was NOT a supporter of Electric Sun claims. Why do the Electric Universe supporters insist on implying that he was?"

http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2009/11/electric-sun-verified-in-your-dreams.html

Dec 19, 2015

Peer-reviewed by experts in plasma physics mind you. Although he did do a presentation at NASA regarding this material.


Peer reviewed in an electrical engineers journal with no qualifications in astrophysics or cosmology.

Dec 19, 2015
*Sigh*. Will cross-purpose misunderstandings never end re this topic? It's a HYBRID process involving 'ALL OF THE ABOVE'. :)

Magnetic lines are convenient abstractions of lines of action/force which produce vortexes. These vortexes in turn dictate the flow of any plasma currents which produced these magnetic forces/vortexes. Wherever there are magnetic field lines/effects, whether directed within/cross/along/towards/away from such vortices, there ALSO are plasma particles flowing according to the self-induced magnetic/electric interactions which naturally seek 'least energy/action' route/state. Hence there ia ALWAYS some form of plasma currents along said topology of magnetic fields/direction etc. The fact we cannot 'observe' radiation from some 'plasma flows' is due to the vortices/layers etc of magnetic field-configurations effectively TRAPPING the energy-particle quanta (just as PLASMOIDS do) until some destabilizing condition arises. Hence explosions/jets. Ok? Chill. :)

Dec 19, 2015
That is amazingly cool, I love space weather. It's obvious we didn't evolve to live in it, because we can't naturally sense any of this stuff, however, the sun can be observed.
Magnetic Reconnection
https://www.youtu...SQjSzLv0
YouTube isn't just for howlers, NASA's there too.

Dec 19, 2015
From this peer-reviewed paper
@cd
from his OPINION
Peer-reviewed by experts in plasma physics
1- MAY 1986 (things have changed since then)
2- peer reviewed by ENGINEERS, not astrophysicists NOR plasma physicists who are trained in astrophysics
this is a tactic still used by eu to push known pseudoscience

Also note- published doesn't mean validated, and given that the links i left ARE VALIDATED and based upon repeated validated experimentation in various labs around the freakin' WORLD...
then you are absolutely wrong (along with alfvie) as well as promoting a known false claim (means you lie)

Dec 20, 2015
"Clearly Alfvén was NOT a supporter of Electric Sun claims. Why do the Electric Universe supporters insist on implying that he was?"
For like 10 seconds I was like, is this an actual discussion that Vietbabykiller is bringing to the table. I should have known better! All y'all need to unwrap your lips from Timmy "The Tool' Thompson's tool and figure out an actual legit argument. Anyway,it won't be difficult to show The Tool is just lying some more.

First, The Electric Sun hypothesis (EU's version) was developed after Alfven passed away. The book 'The Electric Sky', Dr. Don Scott's book which lays out the hypothesis was first published in 2006, Alfven passed in 1995. Unless "The Tool" performed a seance, how exactly would he know Alfven's thoughts on the topic. Further, we can look at what Alfven wrote on the matter which will elucidate his real thoughts, and not the beliefs of some halfwit pseudo-skeptic such as "The Tool". I'll point that out in the following post.

Dec 20, 2015
Hannes Alfvén, wrote in 1986:
"That parallel currents attract each other was known already at the times of Ampere. It is easy to understand that in a plasma, currents should have a tendency to collect to filaments. In 1934, it was explicitly stated by Bennett that this should lead to the formation of a pinch. The problem which led him to the discovery was that the magnetic storm producing medium (solar wind with present terminology) was not flowing out uniformly from the Sun. Hence, it was a problem in cosmic physics which led to the introduction of the pinch effect…
However, to most astrophysicists it is an unknown phenomenon. Indeed, important fields of research, e.g., the treatment of the state in interstellar regions, including the formation of stars, are still based on a neglect of Bennett's discovery more than half a century ago… present-day students in astrophysics hear nothing about it."


That statement proves "The Tool" is lying again! What a surprise!

Dec 20, 2015
As far as the polar double layers Alfven predicted, their detection can be found here;

https://www.newsc...rn-skies

Just more confirmation of the obvious.

Dec 20, 2015
Hence explosions/jets. Ok? Chill. :)

Sorry to say RC, your post adds nothing to the conversation. You omit absolutely vital phenomena related to the action. First, the energy is stored in the total circuit, just as in plasmoids, and that energy is created by the electromotive force of the plasma flowing (vortices) through the magnetic field. Further, those vortices (Birkeland currents) you speak of will almost definitely produce double layers. It is these DL's where the "destabilizing condition" typically arises. Alfven pointed out that every circuit with inductance is intrinsically explosive. Double layers are known to tend to interrupt current in a plasma. Hence, the entire energy of a circuit can be released at the point where a double layer forms regardless of the source of the energy of the circuit.

Your simplistic explanation glosses over the most important factors in the description of these explosive events.

Dec 20, 2015
That is amazingly cool, I love space weather. It's obvious we didn't evolve to live in it, because we can't naturally sense any of this stuff, however, the sun can be observed.
Magnetic Reconnection
https://www.youtu...SQjSzLv0
YouTube isn't just for howlers, NASA's there too.

Once again, a rube trying to prove something while completely missing the boat regarding the root of the discussion. Nobody is questioning whether or not these explosive events occur, the commentary is regarding the pseudoscientific claims of "moving and/or reconnecting field lines". As Alfven pointed out;
"A magnetic field line is by definition a line which is everywhere parallel to the magnetic field. If the current system changes, the shape of the magnetic field line changes but it is meaningless to speak about a translational movement of magnetic field lines."

As such, NASA's explanation in your link is meaningless.

Dec 20, 2015
Hi cd. :)

If you read it carefully you'll realize it involves all the factors/processes you/others mention; and if you read it in wider context of my previous posts re plasma-gravity/electrpmagnetic etc 'component factors' in overall hybrid processes/features (which all phenomena fundamentally entails at various stages/levels of the overall self-reinforcing effects producing 'coherent' bodies/flows/gradients etc), you'll also realize it's a more useful contribution to relevant discourse than your/others' antagonistic/simplistic "all or nothing" stances which keep misunderstandings going/prevent common understanding of what we're REALLY looking at/what's REALLY going on.

I await the moment when the "ah-ha" moment strikes both 'camps' in this totally unnecessary 'battle of the camps'. :)

So, chill, all; and consider the hybrid phenomena; involving fundamental spatio-temporally-distributed sub-processes involving 'flows/connections' to/from all 'localized process/nodes'. :)

Dec 20, 2015
Hi cd. :)
If you read it carefully
I would really suggest you read carefully.
"The idea behind the flare model considered (Alfven's exploding DL) had its source in certain technical problems related to the electrical power supply system in Sweden. In experiments it had been found that, if the electric current in a mercury rectifier was increased above a certain critical limit, the current through the rectifier became interrupted within a small fraction of a second. As a result of the interruption, the electric energy of the whole circuit was concentrated to and released in the rectifier with disastrous consequences. The current interruption was caused by an electrostatic double layer of high impedance that through some instability locally replaced the normally well-conducting mercury plasma in the rectifier."
Alfven developed this theory via the hands on approach. He was presented a problem, experimented, and engineered a solution. The physics involved are specific.

Dec 21, 2015

Peer-reviewed by experts in plasma physics mind you. Although he did do a presentation at NASA regarding this material.


Peer reviewed in an electrical engineers journal with no qualifications in astrophysics or cosmology.

Being that EE are experts in plasma physics and 99.9999% of the Universe is in the plasma state then it is obvious they can be qualified in astrophysics/cosmology. I will admit astrophysicists are likely experts in the other .0001% of the Universe. Well, maybe not actually. They don't have a clue as to what's going on in places like Io and Enceladus, so they really have less impact on society than astrologers.

Dec 21, 2015
Being that EE are experts in plasma physics and 99.9999% of the Universe is in the plasma state
@cd
strawman, delusion and red herring
also: 99% of the MATTER in the universe might be plasma, but ignoring things we KNOW exist (like gravity) is just one reason engineers can't do astrophysics
this has been proven to you time and again, despite your delusional rantings about the subject
I will admit astrophysicists are likely experts in the other .0001% of the Universe
this is because you have no idea what astrophysicists know... you can only guess based upon what your superiors tell you.. and that is a known lie, proven to you time and again

now do you see why your cult is not scientific?

Dec 21, 2015
@cd cont'd
They don't have a clue as to what's going on in places like Io and Enceladus
and yet there are far, FAR more accurate predictions coming out of the SM than the eu pseudoscience... kinda like your predictions here: http://phys.org/n...oon.html

http://phys.org/n...oon.html

http://phys.org/n...ume.html

http://phys.org/n...day.html

http://phys.org/n...ggs.html

so... YOU made predictions about plasma discharge in the first link (and 3rd) - second proved you an idiot (yet again)
third link your prediction failure again
forth is your failure with physics
last is your abject fanaticism displayed when discussing physics with a physicist

this is your words in black and white demonstrating your fanatical cult religion of eu and your conspiracy beliefs

epic failures

Dec 21, 2015
@canti

How's that "electric" comet and the Thundernuts failed predictions going?

Dec 21, 2015
Hi cantdrive. :)

Thanks for polite reply. Understand first: I'm not arguing against known historically recorded plasma work/theory arrived at by Alfven. Nor am I supporting any 'camps' models used to interpret the actual universal plasma phenomena. Ok?

I'm simply pointing out that ALL distributed/localized phenomena, including plasma features/processes involve 'closed circuits' of FEEDBACKS involving HYBRID of processes/factors (ie, inputs, outputs, feedback-loops/connections etc) which TOGETHER produce whatever 'object' we 'see', and also what we DON'T 'see' inextricably associated with that 'object'.

CONSIDER your Mercury Arc Plasma Rectifier eg: the plasma is CONSTRAINED by glass WALLS; this is what GRAVITY constrainment does to some degree on sun. Then there's the plasmoid/currents/flows/forces etc themselves apart from 'boundary' conditions/constraints.

See what I'm getting at? BOTH 'camps' arguing from 'partial' comprehension of what's ACTUALLY involved. Bye. :)

Dec 21, 2015
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? Oh yeah, I am good and hope Santa notices it, thanks for asking.

See what I'm getting at?


Well if he don't see by now, I don't think he is going to get it. Or maybe his computer can't get into the Clubhouse where you lay it all out for the simpletons and couyons.

BOTH 'camps' arguing from 'partial' comprehension of what's ACTUALLY involved.


That's because they want to argue with each other, and both of them want to argue with you too. Which means they are both partially right but when they argue with you they are either all right or all wrong. (I got to spend a little time sorting that out, I am confused how that works.)

Bye. :)


Bye for you too Cher. See you at the Clubhouse where all the Really-Skippy-Really-Good-Stuffs are. I just can't get enough of that stuffs. http://earthlingclub.com/

yep
Dec 21, 2015
@canti

How's that "electric" comet and the Thundernuts failed predictions going?


There goes your memory again!
http://www.aanda....-15.html
Chew on those results for a minute, they did not sink in the last time.

Dec 21, 2015
I would really suggest you read carefully.
Hot off the presses today, Auroral mystery solved: Sudden bursts caused by swirling charged particles

About a decade ago, a predecessor of MMS (ESA's Cluster mission) observed and measured the direct conversion of electromagnetic energy to accelerated electrons during magnetic reconnection, see Image 4 here: http://sci.esa.in...cluster/

Dec 22, 2015
@canti

How's that "electric" comet and the Thundernuts failed predictions going?


There goes your memory again!
http://www.aanda....-15.html
Chew on those results for a minute, they did not sink in the last time.


That still doesn't match Thundernuts predictions.

Dec 22, 2015
I would really suggest you read carefully.
Hot off the presses today, http://phys.org/n...les.html

Did you notice they used MHD to "solve" the mystery? As such, they relied on pseudoscience and their conclusions are not scientific. The description of moving magnetic field lines and their breaking and reconnecting and such are meaningless mumbo jumbo.

Dec 22, 2015
There goes your memory again!
http://www.aanda....-15.html
@yep
you do realise that your link specifically debunks cantdrive in so many ways it aint even funny, right?
heck,,, in that one link, it demonstrates (yet again) that astrophysicists know plasma physics as well as shows the scientific method in action (something you don't see in the eu at all)

plus... i gotta reiterate what V said
i will re-quote him
That still doesn't match Thundernuts predictions



Dec 22, 2015
Did you notice ...
@cd
did you notice that the study is paywalled and you can't state that they didn't also use anything else?
As such, they relied on pseudoscience and their conclusions are not scientific
that is eu in a NUT shell
The description of moving magnetic field lines and their breaking and reconnecting...meaningless mumbo jumbo
repeating a lie doesn't make it more true

as noted already more than three dozen times: you are the one promoting pseudoscience

case in point - you say there is no such thing as magnetic reconnection, and yet you are proven wrong by plasma physicists and engineers here: http://www.pppl.g...nnection

you also say astro's don't know plasma physics, which is refuted above & here: http://ocw.mit.ed...ophysics

SO, are you stupid?
illiterate?
or simply ignoring the obvious scientific evidence?

your religion not giving you what you need?

Dec 22, 2015
@canti

How's that "electric" comet and the Thundernuts failed predictions going?


There goes your memory again!
http://www.aanda....-15.html
Chew on those results for a minute, they did not sink in the last time.


That still doesn't match Thundernuts predictions.

Which predictions would you be referring to? Please, even one would suffice. It would be helpful if you added some context here so your claim can be properly vetted.
Thank you for your cooperation.

Dec 22, 2015
Hannes Alfvén, wrote in 1986:

That statement proves "The Tool" is lying again! What a surprise!

A statement by Hannes Alfvén is not a proof.

Dec 22, 2015

How's that "electric" comet and the Thundernuts failed predictions going?


Which predictions would you be referring to? Please, even one would suffice. It would be helpful if you added some context here so your claim can be properly vetted.
Thank you for your cooperation.


https://www.thund...ictions/


Dec 22, 2015
Which predictions would you be referring to? Please, even one would suffice
@cd
well... i can't speak FOR Vietvet, but i can state that i left 5 links above where you made ... so that is FAR more than "even one"

your "predictions" not only didn't pan out, but were absolutely against the SM and known physics... then you went strangely quiet when challenged on the issue (like the cassini "safe mode" because of plasma discharge)

why is that?

but even ignoring the above, i noticed that thunderbutts likes to remove it's abject failures from the predictions page (already proven this to you historically)
It would be helpful if you added some context here so your claim can be properly vetted.
of course!
all context is given in the above linked threads where you failed to provide any evidence or prove your eu pseudoscience over modern physics

it also shows where you (specifically) make predictions


Dec 22, 2015
Hannes Alfvén, wrote in 1986:

That statement proves "The Tool" is lying again! What a surprise!

A statement by Hannes Alfvén is not a proof.

It in fact is, in the context of the thread. There was a claim made that Alfvén didn't subscribe to an electric sun, the statement proves otherwise.

Dec 22, 2015
@canti

How's that "electric" comet and the Thundernuts failed predictions going?

Let's see, but I think it only fair to compare with the "dirty snowball";

1) No evidence of subsurface ice at the sources of the jets;
Now, I haven't seen anything regarding subsurface ice, but what "ice" was detected is as follows.
From: http://www.esa.in..._surface
"In all cases, however, the bright patches were found in areas that receive relatively little solar energy, such as in the shadow of a cliff"

So far, so good.

How about the dirty snowball?

http://www.scienc...0017.jpg

Not even in the same solar system, let alone ballpark.


Dec 22, 2015
2) Virtually no interstellar dust, the second component of the "dirty snowball" theory;
http://phys.org/n...ice.html
"VIRTIS onboard Rosetta have shown that 67P is rocky and almost completely covered in a layer of organic compounds – which was NOT EXPECTED."
The dirty snowball? Err...Uhh...Anyway.
3)Discovery of minerals on the nucleus that are typical of planetary surfaces within the Habitable zone of the Sun;
See above, check!
Dirty snowball?
I'll repeat, which was not expected..

Dec 22, 2015
4)characteristic concentration of plasma jet activity eating away at the cliffs of elevated terrain and the margins of well-defined depressions;

http://www.esa.in...ate_jets

"We see jets arising from the fractured areas of the walls inside the pits."
http://www.aanda....1-15.pdf

Cliff faces, check.

Dirty snowball?

http://explanet.i...4_04.jpg

Move along. Nothing to see here.

5) Measurable retreat of active cliff regions in the wake of this activity;

A comparison needs to be made here, but the previous paper suggests such a thing.

Result, push.

6) The presence of unexpected electric fields within the coma and/or close to the comet nucleus;
Yep,
http://www.aanda....-15.html

That would register a 5 out of 6, not bad where I come from. What about the dirty snowball, not doing so well is it? Maybe next time...


Dec 23, 2015

1) No evidence of subsurface ice at the sources of the jets;
Now, I haven't seen anything regarding subsurface ice, but what "ice" was detected is as follows.

From: http://www.esa.in..._surface
"In all cases, however, the bright patches were found in areas that receive relatively little solar energy, such as in the shadow of a cliff,"

You left out the rest of that statement:

" and no significant changes were observed between images taken over a period of about a month. Furthermore, they were found to be bluer in colour at visible wavelengths compared with the redder background, consistent with an icy component."

"We are now able to show that this cycle is common in several regions of the nucleus, depending on the illumination conditions, and hence further demonstrate that the proposed cycle is a general mechanism of water transport from depth to the surface acting on comets,"
http://blogs.esa....e-cycle/

Dec 23, 2015
"The comet being studied by Rosetta is porous enough to float in an ocean, and it exhibits alien phenomena still being unraveled by scientists on Earth."

"The signal detected by Rosetta indicates complex organic molecules were abundant in the material that formed the comet's nucleus, according to a press release issued by the National Institute for Astrophysics in Rome."
"Therefore, these compounds must have formed at large distances from the sun, during the early stages of the build up of the solar system,"

"This suggests that we are facing a comet that locks up, in its interior, traces of primordial chemical compounds that date back to the formation of our solar system, or possibly to an even earlier epoch."
http://spacefligh...n-focus/

Dec 23, 2015
"The formation of such compounds requires the presence of ices of volatile molecules such as methanol, methane or carbon monoxide, which only freeze at very low temperatures," said Fabrizio Capaccioni, principal investigator for the VIRTIS instrument at the Institute for Space Astrophysics and Planetology in Rome."

http://spacefligh...n-focus/

Dec 23, 2015
From this peer-reviewed paper; http://www.iaea.o...0222.pdf


Peer reviewed paper my ass, it was a lecture.

To the contrary, it was peer-reviewed and published;
H. Alfvén, "Double layers and circuits in astrophysics," IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci., vol. PS-14, no. 6, p. 788, Dec. 1986.

Peer-reviewed by experts in plasma physics mind you. Although he did do a presentation at NASA regarding this material.

Conference papers are hardly reviewed.

Dec 24, 2015


1) No evidence of subsurface ice at the sources of the jets;
Now, I haven't seen anything regarding subsurface ice, but what "ice" was detected is as follows.
From: http://www.esa.in..._surface

Not even in the same solar system, let alone ballpark.


Wrong. The impact onto Tempel 1 excavated solid ice grains. We've known this for nearly a decade. They were seen by two different instruments. From the DI infrared instrument: http://www.planet...3546.pdf
From XMM Newton in UV: http://www.aanda....281.html
Ice grains were also seen at 103P Hartley 2 in IR: http://arxiv.org/...3382.pdf
Subsurface ice has already been detected at 67P with MIRO: We....... also see evidence for subsurface ice in some regions: https://agu.confe...er/85998

Don't suppose Thornhill mentioned all that.

Dec 24, 2015
@canti

How's that "electric" comet and the Thundernuts failed predictions going?


There goes your memory again!
http://www.aanda....-15.html
Chew on those results for a minute, they did not sink in the last time.

Hilarious! You clearly have no idea what that cite says - which doesn't surprise me, given comments you have made here previously. So you are either another acolyte like cantthink or you are one of the gullible or stupid that acolytes like him prey on.

Tell me, what do you think that link says about electric comets? Be specific.

Dec 24, 2015


1) No evidence of subsurface ice at the sources of the jets;
Now, I haven't seen anything regarding subsurface ice, but what "ice" was detected is as follows.
From: http://www.esa.in..._surface


Don't suppose Thornhill mentioned all that.

Jackassdave, can you read? Nobody is questioning water ices, try reading it one word at a time. The prediction is very specific;
"No evidence of subsurface ice AT THE SOURCES of the jets".
You've got this hard on about the ice grains, let me put it to you this way stupid f**k. Water ice does in no way falsify the Electric Comet. Just think back to the electrochemistry comments you made, just because you own stupidity precludes something does not in any way shape or form mean it is correct.

Dec 25, 2015
@cd
Ill say it again for the hard of thinking; you CANNOT get electrochemistry on a rock. Where is this plasma? You talking about the very diffuse solar wind? Not going to happen. Perhaps you could tell us how this plasma, which isn't even reaching the surface of the comet once the diamagnetic cavity forms, is somehow traveling through dust (we've found no rock) to create water? Give us some links to experiment. Not proposals or experiments that use very hot, dense plasmas in highly controlled man made situations; how is this happening on a comet? No links to scientifically illiterate EU bullshit; just some peer reviewed proposals of how this can happen.
There aren't any. Know why? Because it's a fairy tale.

Dec 25, 2015
... Jackassdave, can you read? ...

At such a point you lose credibility, all of it.

yep
Dec 26, 2015
@cd
Ill say it again for the hard of thinking; you CANNOT get electrochemistry on a rock. Where is this plasma? You talking about the very diffuse solar wind? Not going to happen. Perhaps you could tell us how this plasma, which isn't even reaching the surface of the comet once the diamagnetic cavity forms, is somehow traveling through dust (we've found no rock) to create water? Give us some links to experiment. Not proposals or experiments that use very hot, dense plasmas in highly controlled man made situations; how is this happening on a comet? No links to scientifically illiterate EU bullshit; just some peer reviewed proposals of how this can happen.
There aren't any. Know why? Because it's a fairy tale.

http://www.aanda....-15.html
They obviously can't read. Where is this Plasma? And small change questions credibility, all you guys are laughable with your stunning lack of comprehension.


Jan 07, 2016
jonesdave stated
@cd
Ill say it again for the hard of thinking; you CANNOT get electrochemistry on a rock
Do you mean at space cold temps on the surface of the rock or inside it or otherwise because there's no water inside/out ? - in that case are you stating can't ever be any solid electrochemistry without water at all ?

Because, I've been fortunate to examine a device in my lab ~20yrs ago which not only had electrochemistry in a solid interstitial layer in a type of fuel cell but, also devoid of water.

FWIW: I often challenge cantdrive85 on wide range of details re his (emotional) attachment to EU ideas which appear much more like propaganda & his abject failure to quantify *any* of his claims or even address the Maths.

The simplest/easiest to address was cantdrive85's claim electromagnetic forces influence solar system orbits ie add/ subtract to gravitational forces but, Nil Evidence, Nil prediction, Nil math of any sort :-(

ie Physics...

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more